Jump to content
STENDEC

Testosterone Thresholds

Recommended Posts

Ever wonder how high your T levels need to be to make anabolic changes?

 

According to this, you need to have levels at +1200ng/dl to make a difference...somewhat less if you are also supplementing with growth hormone...

 

 

J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011 Jan;66(1):122-9. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glq183. Epub 2010 Nov 8.

Testosterone threshold levels and lean tissue mass targets needed to enhance skeletal muscle strength and function: the HORMA trial.

Sattler F, Bhasin S, He J, Chou CP, Castaneda-Sceppa C, Yarasheski K, Binder E, Schroeder ET, Kawakubo M, Zhang A, Roubenoff R, Azen S.

Source

 

Department of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. fsattler@usc.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

 

In the HORMA (Hormonal Regulators of Muscle and Metabolism in Aging) Trial, supplemental testosterone and recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) enhanced lean body mass, appendicular skeletal muscle mass, muscle performance, and physical function, but there was substantial interindividual variability in outcomes.

METHODS:

 

One hundred and twelve men aged 65-90 years received testosterone gel (5 g/d vs 10 g/d via Leydig cell clamp) and rhGH (0 vs 3 vs 5 μg/kg/d) in a double-masked 2 × 3 factorial design for 16 weeks. Outcomes included lean tissue mass by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, one-repetition maximum strength, Margaria stair power, and activity questionnaires. We used pathway analysis to determine the relationship between changes in hormone levels, muscle mass, strength, and function.

RESULTS:

 

Increases in total testosterone of 1046 ng/dL (95% confidence interval = 1040-1051) and 898 ng/dL (95% confidence interval = 892-904) were necessary to achieve median increases in lean body mass of 1.5 kg and appendicular skeletal muscle mass of 0.8 kg, respectively, which were required to significantly enhance one-repetition maximum strength (≥ 30%). Co-treatment with rhGH lowered the testosterone levels (quantified using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry) necessary to reach these lean mass thresholds. Changes in one-repetition maximum strength were associated with increases in stair climbing power (r = .26, p = .01). Pathway analysis supported the model that changes in testosterone and insulin-like growth factor 1 levels are related to changes in lean body mass needed to enhance muscle performance and physical function. Testosterone's effects on physical activity were mediated through a different pathway because testosterone directly affected Physical Activity Score of the Elderly.

CONCLUSIONS:

 

To enhance muscle strength and physical function, threshold improvements in lean body mass and appendicular skeletal muscle mass are necessary and these can be achieved by targeting changes in testosterone levels. rhGH augments the effects of testosterone. To maximize functional improvements, the doses of anabolic hormones should be titrated to achieve target blood levels.

 

PMID: 21059836

 

FFT

 

Bump for Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest WangChung
According to this, you need to have levels at +1200ng/dl to make a difference...somewhat less if you are also supplementing with growth hormone...

 

What happens at 1150, ng? Almost anabolic? What happens when you are taking an injectable, and you drop back through the 1200 floor? No longer anabolic?

 

I find the thesis quite puzzling. I dont believe it is so black & white. It's a continuum. I know that to be the case for me, as well as many others.

 

All this said, I am not suggesting that there is not data to support this thesis. We don't have any good data supporting significant physiological benefits in eugonadal men from AIs that substantially increase testosterone to youthful levels, for instance. However, there is some support that it helps reduce body fat, while maintaining LBM and strength, meaning it's a candidate for a recomp agent, at the very least. I would like to see a study done in hypogonadal men.

 

Have you given any thought to the affects that AIs have on androgen-receptor expression, vis-a-vis testosterone? I had some really good results combining an AI with Danazol, because, I believe, it helped this expression. My TT was in the 700 ng range, IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
What happens at 1150, ng? Almost anabolic? What happens when you are taking an injectable, and you drop back through the 1200 floor? No longer anabolic?

 

I find the thesis quite puzzling. I dont believe it is so black & white. It's a continuum. I know that to be the case for me, as well as many others.

 

The data sort of speak for themselves here:

 

Quote

Increases in total testosterone of 1046 ng/dL (95% confidence interval = 1040-1051) and 898 ng/dL (95% confidence interval = 892-904) were necessary to achieve median increases in lean body mass of 1.5 kg and appendicular skeletal muscle mass of 0.8 kg, respectively, which were required to significantly enhance one-repetition maximum strength (≥ 30%).

 

But I would agree, it is a continuum...the effects are not linear, however, and what happens between 800ng/dl and 1200ng/dl and what happens between 400ng/dl and 800ng/dl are pretty clearly not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of us believe in black and white effects, and I think we all support a continuum thesis. But the study is pretty clear, so use our thesis to weed through theirs and you can be comfortable with what you see. At least, I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However' date=' there is some support that it helps reduce body fat, while maintaining LBM and strength, meaning it's a candidate for a recomp agent, at the very least. [/quote']

 

AI use promotes recomp in euogonadal men? I am not familiar with this data. Can you link to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my reading, hormones rarely seem to exhibit a linear response in the body. It's usually a set of peaks and plateaus. Chalk this up to autoregulation, I don't know, but it seems to be the case. It could very well be that a 50ng/ml difference in one's body could be the difference between making the cut or busting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my reading' date=' hormones rarely seem to exhibit a linear response in the body. It's usually a set of peaks and plateaus. Chalk this up to autoregulation, I don't know, but it seems to be the case. It could very well be that a 50ng/ml difference in one's body could be the difference between making the cut or busting.[/quote']

 

I think this is an excellent point. Homeostasis being what the body craves, 500mg/wk me become less effective over time and it might take 550 for the same effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest WangChung
My last enhanced reading was 5030ng

 

Is that anabolic?

 

I really can't really imagine what that's like. It would be nice to be able to train once per week and get hyooge. (I know, I know, I have it ass backwards.) But I am sure I would be bat crazy, bipolar ultra-fast cycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest WangChung
5000ng? Insanity.

 

Mitosis is like the AAS version of some friends I had in grad school, who liked to challenge their psyches by seeing how much acid they could handle. They swore up and down that it was very clarifying when they came out the other side of it. NO thanks! I am not hardy enough for such AAS (or acid!) challenges. But if I were, boy would I be posting some pics, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that aren't big without them are already missing pieces of the puzzle, so they won't get big with them either. It's just something people use to blame shortcomings on. "I'd be swole on 1g/wk test." Probably not.

 

Needed to spit that out.

 

Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People that aren't big without them are already missing pieces of the puzzle, so they won't get big with them either. It's just something people use to blame shortcomings on. "I'd be swole on 1g/wk test." Probably not.

 

Needed to spit that out.

 

Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Tapatalk 2

Spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People that aren't big without them are already missing pieces of the puzzle' date=' so they won't get big with them either. It's just something people use to blame shortcomings on. "I'd be swole on 1g/wk test." Probably not.[/quote']

 

I'm going to take some issue with that. In my favoritest study of all time they dosed a group of normal men with 600mg/week test enthanate and told them to sit on their hands. They compared these guys to a matched group who got placebo but lifted three days a week. At the end of three months, the couch+test group had gained 3.2kg of LBM and the group who had been lifting gained 1.9kg and the 1RM squat and 1RM bench of both groups increased about the same amount.

 

Of course, the guys who got test AND worked out did phenomenally better than either of the other groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to take some issue with that. In my favoritest study of all time they dosed a group of normal men with 600mg/week test enthanate and told them to sit on their hands. They compared these guys to a matched group who got placebo but lifted three days a week. At the end of three months, the couch+test group had gained 3.2kg of LBM and the group who had been lifting gained 1.9kg and the 1RM squat and 1RM bench of both groups increased about the same amount.

 

Of course, the guys who got test AND worked out did phenomenally better than either of the other groups.

Not to speak for mwarren, but I understood his point differently than you did.

 

mwarren is not disparaging the effects of steroids. His issue is with trained individuals, say those past the newbie gain phase, thinking steroids will magically transform them into the hulks they see on Muscle Development magazines. It doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mwarren is not disparaging the effects of steroids. His issue is with trained individuals, say those past the newbie gain phase, thinking steroids will magically transform them into the hulks they see on Muscle Development magazines. It doesn't.

 

Ahh. Point taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I just see a lot of guys not on gear weighing 150 and squatting 150, then juicing way up, gaining 5lbs in a year and still squatting 150 because they still never learned how to train or eat. It's the whole reason steroids are demonized. Misuse by individuals who aren't ready. Steroids sure as hell do work for some people even if they don't do everything right but it's because they're eating enough. Still won't land em in the big leagues though. If only everyone had to pass a competency exam prior to use...

 

Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really can't really imagine what that's like. It would be nice to be able to train once per week and get hyooge. (I know' date=' I know, I have it ass backwards.) But I am sure I would be bat crazy, bipolar ultra-fast cycling.[/quote']

 

It feels friggin awesome. ;)

 

But all good things must come to an end. I shall have to endure with test levels of 700-800.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly the hardest part is not the gym stuff.

 

Its the libido. And the confidence.

 

I mean, I was a walking hard on. Throw in some bromo and cilias and I could boost the US economy sleeping w not hot women for pay. It was like my job to find something legal, female with a pulse. Once you go back, even to a normal levels it seems "low". Messes with your head.

 

I wouldnt say it lowered my impulse control with things like danger or driving/fighting whatever. But with finding chicks....yes, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is an excellent point. Homeostasis being what the body craves' date=' 500mg/wk me become less effective over time and it might take 550 for the same effects.[/quote']

 

I remember reading that decrease in effectiveness was not so much due to homeostasis in the reduction of AR, but rather an increase in circulating Cortisol. The increase in Cort (as I take it) was an attempt to slow the accretion of muscle mass in order to maintain homeostasis. The more hormones, the more the anabolic signal overides the catabolic, and the more cort is produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading that decrease in effectiveness was not so much due to homeostasis in the reduction of AR' date=' but rather an increase in circulating Cortisol. The increase in Cort (as I take it) was an attempt to slow the accretion of muscle mass in order to maintain homeostasis. The more hormones, the more the anabolic signal overides the catabolic, and the more cort is produced.[/quote']

 

I remember reading a few times...higher doses increases androgen receptors....so in that case, more was better.

 

But the cortisol thing makes sense as the reason for dwindling effects. Though I doubt it would make too much difference for the IFBB guys running 3g a week, plus slin,hgh,.....etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading that decrease in effectiveness was not so much due to homeostasis in the reduction of AR' date=' but rather an increase in circulating Cortisol. The increase in Cort (as I take it) was an attempt to slow the accretion of muscle mass in order to maintain homeostasis. The more hormones, the more the anabolic signal overides the catabolic, and the more cort is produced.[/quote']

 

I remember reading the thread you posted with that study as well. I think the discussion began on the futility of cortisol blocking supplements for the healthy, but then we turned around to how high cortisol levels affect those on AAS especially as they withdraw androgens and cortisol remains high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading a few times...higher doses increases androgen receptors....so in that case, more was better.

 

But the cortisol thing makes sense as the reason for dwindling effects. Though I doubt it would make too much difference for the IFBB guys running 3g a week, plus slin,hgh,.....etc etc

Also consider many if not all blast and cruise, which may help to ameliorate these effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...